Saturday, 11 June 2016

Part 2 - Justification of Hypotheses

In a previous blog [1] I outlined a system dynamics model of how
Christianity is losing ground to a new movement in society, which I nicknamed
the “Diversity Ideology”. I chose this name because people in the movement
affirm a wide diversity of individual practices and lifestyles, especially in
the area of sexual behaviour, where its most public manifestation is felt.

Christianity and the Diversity ideology are competing for
the public space – the media, public bodies, private organisations and
companies etc. As church declines, it has less influence in this public space,
thus leaving areas open to new ideas, the neutral space, figure 1. Thus a new
ideology has more opportunity to influence these public bodies. Diversity is
doing this through activists that champion the notions of equality, diversity,
tolerance and inclusion; through the various LGBT+ agencies and through
humanist and atheistic groups. Though not necessarily anti-Christian, it is
opposed to the “Christianity of the past”. Thus the more liberal Christian
groups can be found in its midst, as well as atheists looking to discredit all
religion, especially the “established” one in the West.

The model is only at the dynamical hypothesis stage, and
still needs further assumptions for a full implementation. Before doing this I
would like to provide evidence to support the hypotheses. Specifically I will provide
examples where public bodies, or individuals in the public space, display their
conversion to the Diversity ideology.

Ideological Change

When people change their ideology they do at least four
things:

A. Rewrite history to fit the new ideology. I dealt
with this in a previous blog [2]

B. Public confession of past failures. Either
themselves, or those they no longer identify with.

C. Adoption of badges of new identity. It may be just
for a moment, like baptism, or permanent, like a dress code.

D. Demonisation of those who have not changed. They
split the population in to the enlightened (the new ideology) and the
unenlightened (the ones they used to belong to).

I am not saying any of these are wrong. Christianity has all
four in varying degrees, just read Paul the apostle’s account of his
conversion! My point is that these are true of conversion to all
ideologies, including humanist ones. Also they are true of organisational
conversion, not just individual.

Ideological Change of
Public Bodies

Many countries have already indicated their conversion to
the Diversity ideology either by passing legislation on same-sex marriage, or
in President Obama’s case lighting up the White House in rainbow colours.
However the state government of Victoria in Australia went much further when
premier Daniel Andrews issued a long public apology for the past laws that
criminalised homosexual behaviour [3].

He apologised for specific events in 1937, 1967 and 1976,
indicating the State’s conversion (B) from the morals of the past to those of
Diversity. He further re-wrote history (A) by saying: “It is easy for us to
condemn their bigotry. But the law required them to be bigoted.” I suspect the
people of the past were just as opposed to bigotry as people are now, what has
changed is the ideological and moral framework by which bigotry is measured.

There was less evidence of a badge of identity (C) in this
speech but the statement: “Here in Victoria equality is not negotiable” comes
close. The identifier “equality” is used, but in the restricted sense of the
Diversity ideology as, presumably equality of things such as income and housing
is not included. Finally the demonization of the unenlightened (D) is seen such
phrases as: “Tomorrow, a trans woman will be turned away from a job interview”,
and him indicating: “there is still much to do”.

The rights and wrongs of what he said are not relevant here.
This is an example of an advocate of the Diversity ideology using his position
to influence the public space with the conversion experience of a government.
This in turn influences the number of people who align themselves with
the new ideology, loop Rd2 in figure
2, and increases the amount of public space with the new ideological
sympathies, loop Bd3, figure2 (and
1).

Figure 2: Causal Loop Diagram of the Diversity Ideology Sector

Ideological Change of
Influential Individuals

There have been two recent cases in the UK where individual
politicians have had to publically express their conversion experience to
Diversity. From 2014 onwards education secretary, Nicky Morgan has been
confessing (B) her mistake in voting against same-sex marriage in 2013 [4]. She
has spoken at the Pink News awards in the House of Commons and at Stonewall as
her “badge” of identification (C) [5]. She sort of rewrote history when she
claimed she voted against the legislation because of the pressure from
constituents (A). When she indicated some people (like her) were slow to take
up these things she (gently) put down the unenlightened (D).

Likewise Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron had to undergo
something of a public climb-down when he became leader of a party closely
identified with Diversity [6]. Both Farron and Morgan are committed Christians
[7] and their public identification with Diversity, over their Christian
beliefs, weakens Christianity in the public space, loop Bc3, figure 1, while strengthening Diversity’s public profile loop Bd3.

Of course anyone with the slightest bit of compassion would
feel really sorry for them for what they had to go through to stay in public
life. Public confessions are humiliating, and in the past churches have also
been responsible for inflicting these on others, usually on Christians who
differ from them. Sadly compassion is not a strong feature of an ideology at
the zealot stage.

Ideological Change
within Churches

The ideological competition between Christianity and
Diversity occurs within the Christian church itself. At first glance this seems
confusing as it is all called “Christian”. For the purposes of the model the
word “Christian” means that part of the church that believes what it has
received from the past is fixed and cannot be changed. This is usually divine
revelation – the Bible – as in the Evangelical case. But for some it may mean
traditions set centuries ago which are not to be changed, e.g. the
Anglo-Catholic view of male-only priesthood.

On the other hand the part of the church aligned to the
Diversity ideology is the more liberal part, though that includes some
Evangelicals who are liberalising.The key difference is that like in humanism, beliefs are determined by
people, not by a fixed cannon.

The Church in Wales is an Anglican church, and like many UK
denominations, is indicating decline to extinction [8]. Last year the attempts by its leadership
to introduced same-sex marriage were stalled by significant opposition from
diocesan representatives. Since then the bishops of the church have issued a
pastoral statement that indicates the Church’s conversion to Diversity in the
public sphere [9].

Notably there was the display of the rainbow flag as the
identification badge (C). The
unenlightened laggards within the church are subtly discredited with statements
like“the Church is not yet
ready to accept same-sex marriage” (D). There is a general confession of,
and apology for, past damage the church has done to gay people (B). Though the
actual offences, and the people involved, are not identified, leaving the
reader to re-write history for themselves in order to make sense of the
statement (A).

Though the Bishops said they could not proceed with same-sex
blessings, they nevertheless produced prayers to be used at same-sex
celebrations that omitted the word “bless”. They could take this decision on
their own authority without need for corporate ratification. This shows how the
influence of the public space by the Diversity ideology is top down, not bottom-up.
That is, it is activists working within the controlling elite, or the leaders
themselves, shifting the public space away from Christianity towards Diversity,
loop Rd2, figure 2.

By contrast religions like Christianity, renewal movements
and revivals are bottom up. That is enthusiasts within the church convert
individuals through person-to-person contact, loop Rc1, figure 1. These movements have less patronage by their elites,
and thus less growth through activism in the public space, loop Rc2. The influence on the public space
is more long-term, which of course has been the position of Christianity in the
West for some time.

Figure 3: Causal Loop Diagram of Church & Christianity

A similar top-down conversion in the public space occurred
yesterday when the Scottish Episcopal Church voted to adopt same-sex marriage,
with the final decision to be made in 2017 [10]. This strategy has been ongoing
for some years, and it shows how with a long drawn-out conversion, an organisation
can increase its ideological influence on the public.

The numerical future of the Church in Wales and the Scottish
Episcopal church is bleak [8], with or without same-sex marriage. But the
public conversions of both bodies as organisations (not individuals!) to the
Diversity ideology shows how even small organisations can have a big influence
on the public space, provided they back the growing side. Had either church issued
negative statements with regard to LGBT+ issues it is doubtful they would have
been reported. Diversity has easier access to the public space than
conservative Christianity; loop Rd2
is stronger than Rc2, figures 2 and
3.

Conclusion

Hopefully these examples are enough to show how the feedback
loops in the causal loop diagrams relate to ideological conversion in the
public space. It does mean for conservative Christians the public space is now a
very uncomfortable place. A Christian who publically speaks what they believe
will feel a bit like the North Korean who stops clapping first in a party meeting
with Kim Jong-un! All eyes are on them – they are an embarrassment as they are
not politically correct. If not repentant they can quickly face the wrath of
the Diversity champions, who will exclude anyone that challenges their
inclusive ideology.

But as I said before these situations often display the
Christian church at its best. It forces believers to seek conversions within
their network, under the radar of the public space, loop Rc1, figure 3, relying on the Holy Spirit rather than popularity. Indeed
however unpleasant public ridicule, it can help weaken the internal institutionalism
that has stifled Christianity for so long (loop Bc2), as true believers seek like-minded Christians for comfort,
rather than their institutionalised and often compromised denominations.

Of course as Christians we are in good company as it was in
the public space that the political and religious elite tried to catch Jesus
out. They never did, and I really wish I could come up with the responses He
did! But He did promise the Holy Spirit would help us speak. And of course we
know what they did to Him! And He never said we would not suffer for our faith.

I will return to this model in due course and attempt to
turn it into a simulation.

Friday, 3 June 2016

Part 1 - Model Construction

In the last two blogs I have referred to the “New Ideology”,
an ideology which is gradually taking the place of Christianity in Western
societies [1], and causing division in the Christian church [2]. So what is
this ideology, and can its spread be modelled?

First some clarification of terminology. By “ideology” I
mean the set of beliefs, rules and behavioural norms held by a group of people
[3]. They may subscribe to them by choice, inherit them from birth, or be
compelled to follow them by some authority. For example communism is a
political ideology; vegetarianism is a lifestyle ideology. A religion like
Christianity can be an ideology if people follow its norms, without necessarily
having a religious belief. Thus a country can be Christian even if most of the
population neither attend church nor believe in God. For most of history most
people did not attend church in the UK, let alone have saving faith, but enough
held to a Christian ideology to make it the accepted standard of British society.

Different ideologies can sit side-by-side if they embrace
different spheres of life. But when they overlap and contradict each other
there can be competition and conflict. History can be viewed as a series of
coexisting and competing ideologies – sometimes one supplanting another. So communism
supplanted imperialism, Christianity replaced paganism, and the anti-smoking
lifestyle has almost, but not quite, squeezed out the smokers [4]!

New Ideology Defined

Until recently Christianity was the accepted ideology in the
West, some countries, such as the UK, more than others, e.g. France. However as
Christian practice has declined it has left a void that is now being filled by
a new ideology, atheistic in origin, and humanist in practice. The new ideology
is humanist because its ethical truth is determined by people, rather than
revealed by God. We get to choose
what is right and wrong behaviour, both collectively, and in the current
outworking of this ideology, individually [5].

As with any new ideology naming it is a problem. Politicians
often use the label “liberal progressive”, but as both these words have other
connotations I will avoid both [6]. Instead I will plump for “Diversity
Ideology”, as its chief manifestation is that a whole range of beliefs, behaviours
and lifestyle expressions are acceptable. If it is right for you, it is right
and must be tolerated; and the people who practice it treated as equals and
fully included in all areas of society, however diverse the people are. Hence
the ideology’s four defining words: equality, tolerance, inclusion and
diversity.

These defining words can be found just about everywhere in
the public space, such as government, education, the voluntary sector and media
[7]. Of course the ideology has an inbuilt contradiction as advocates often say
they will not tolerate anyone who does not adhere to these principles;
the danger of basing an ideology on words whose meanings are not clarified. But
that is the stuff of ideology. Just think how many problems occur in
Christianity over the meaning and use of words [8]!

The Diversity Ideology often manifests itself in the
promotion of sexual diversity, the lifestyle ideologies of the LGBT+ families.
Specifically the ideology promotes the gay lifestyle with the continuing adoption
of same-sex marriage, and transgender issues with the current “bathroom wars”
in the USA [9]. But I think the ideology is much larger than these sexual
behaviours and existed before they became current. It has been competing with
Christianity in the public space for some generations and has perhaps latched
on to LGBT+ issues because this is a clear battlefield between truth revealed
by God and truth determined by people.

Anyway the name “Diversity” will serve the purpose of model
construction for now. It is not a pejorative name. It fits in with the rainbow
flag, a common symbol of the ideology. It also describes a similar movement
within the first century Corinthian church, influenced by the culture of its
day, whose slogan was “all things are
lawful for me”. Paul, the apostle, has to correct this, urging them to flee sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:12).

Model of Ideological Competition

What I would like to do is model the competition between the
Diversity Ideology and Christianity. Part of this competition occurs in the
public space, by which I mean the government, business world, voluntary organisations
and media, some of which I have already referred to [7]. The public space may well be within a
church itself, where the liberal wing of the church competes with the evangelical
and/or traditional wings.

Christianity

Firstly, a model of the rise and fall of the Christian
church. This is given as a causal loop diagram (CLD) which expresses hypotheses
without taking it as far as a simulation, figure 1. The primary growth
mechanism of the church is through the actions of its people, reinforcing loop Rc1. The more people in church, the more
conversions, thus more people in church [10]. Christianity has often grown as a
mass movement, as in its first few centuries and the 18th-19th
century revivals.

Figure 1: Causal Loop Diagram of Church & Christianity

Growth is limited by institutionalism, loop Bc2, which
reduces the conversion rate through the rising organisational and spiritual
lethargy of a growing church. Likewise people leave the church, loop Bc1.
Growth changes to decline when the dwindling conversions fall below the leaving
rate. A full explanation of this institutional model of church growth is given elsewhere
[11].

To examine the rise of Christianity as an ideology then the
impact of church adherence on the public space needs to be considered. As the
church increases, more of the public space becomes aligned with Christianity,
part of loop Rc2.The rise of Christian things in the
public space could be taken as a measure of the rise of Christianity as an
ideology [12]. A past example of this is Christianity in the Roman Empire,
where Christians eventually forced their way into a pagan public space by sheer
weight of numbers. This is a bottom-up form of cultural change, i.e. one due
mainly to grass-roots movements of ordinary people.

There is potential for feedback here as an increasingly
Christian public space may well make conversions easier, no longer does the new
convert need to renounce their society. However as a means of conversion it is
now much weaker than it was as the public space that was Christian by
conviction has become Christian by tradition only.

The final piece of the model is the neutral public space,
that is the organisations etc. that were not strongly attached to either the
Christian ideology or to its competitor. When Christianity was replacing
Paganism much of the Pagan public space had become nominal, the neutral space in
those days – it was here that Christians were able to gain public influence.
Now as Christianity declines, its presence in the public space is declining
leaving it neutral, i.e. Christian by tradition only. This is a balancing loop,
Bc3, as increasing Christianity
decreases the neutral, but as neutral declines there is less of it to be
influenced. More on this in a minute.

Diversity

The model of the rise of the Diversity Ideology is a
parallel model to the Christian one, other than the grass roots reinforcing
loop, the conversion by individuals on the ground, is missing, figure 2. Instead
all its recruitment is through its influence in the public space, loop Rd2. The reasoning behind this assumption
is that religions like Christianity have massive grass-roots participation.
Christians meet weekly for worship and teaching and thus reinforce each other
and engage in recruitment from the local base.

Figure 2: Causal Loop Diagram of the Diversity Ideology Sector

By contrast a lifestyle ideology such as the Diversity one
has no such regular local meeting places. There are pressure groups such as the
British Humanist Society and a variety of LBGT+ organisations, but active
participation in these is only a small minority of those who hold or practice
the beliefs. Thus the Diversity Ideology, like humanism and atheism, is top-down
in its influence, not bottom-up. Rather than individuals attempting to convert other
individuals to the cause, there is instead a core of committed activists
seeking to change society. Individuals may then be changed, through the changes
in society. But societal shift, as measured by the public space, is more
important to them than grass-roots recruitment. A good rally or march is always
encouraging to them, but these are occasional, not weekly and relational.

Public Space

The interaction between Christianity and the Diversity
Ideology is in the public space, the arena of ideological change. Public spaces
tend to be neutral unless there is some effort by an ideology to influence it.
This is the natural tendency to apathy, and the loops connected with this are omitted.
Connecting loops Bc3 and Bd3 from figures 1 and 2 respectively,
gives a systems archetype called success
to the successful, figure 3.

Although this subsystem consists of two balancing loops its overall
effect is reinforcing, seen by tracing the figure of eight in the diagram. For
example Diversity increases, thus the neutral reduces, thus Christianity
reduces (+ means same way), thus releasing more public space from which
Diversity, currently the stronger influence of the two, can fill.

A Test of the Model

The subsystem in figure 3 can be implemented and run to test
its hypotheses. The numbers advocating the Diversity Ideology is allowed to
rise from the late 1950s. The Christian church is assumed to be declining
throughout. Initially the Christian public space is declining, with the neutral
space increasing, figure 4. Once the influence of the Diversity Ideology
starts, the neutral space falls, causing the Christian place in the public
space to decline faster. Diversity has exploited the weakness of Christianity
in society, and because Church numbers are declining, there is little chance
for Christianity to recover. By this century Diversity is occupying more of the
public space than the Christian [13].

Figure 4: Results of Ideological Competition

The levels and the dates are up for debate, but the
subsystem is behaving as intended.

How Can the Christian Church Compete?

The key for the church is the person-to-person conversion
loop Rc1, figure 1; the word of mouth
mechanism that is natural to Church, but absent in non-religious ideologies
with its relative lack of regular grass-roots participation [14]. Church has declined because this loop
has become weak through institutionalism, lack of belief, and lack of seeking
the Holy Spirit. But the model in figure 1 represents only the average for the
whole church. Although most of the pre-1900 denominations are heading for
extinction, there are smaller denominations, such as Pentecostal, and
individual denominational congregations, for which this loop is stronger. These
are the parts of the church that convert people. The alive part!

Thus as long as the alive part of the church persists in
conversion and discipleship it will currently take the place of the older
denominations, and the church as a whole will start growing again. Thus the church
will again be able to have a growing influence in the public space, when opportunity
returns.

By contrast the time will come when the Diversity Ideology
will have been hit by the same institutionalism and complacency that now
affects most of the Christian church. This is same mechanism that led to the
decline of communism, Paganism, and just about every other ideology of the
past. A church that holds on, though small, will in the future be able displace
Diversity, or whatever form Humanism takes then, from the public space.

Some final points to note:

Church may have to survive a generation or more as
a vilified minority in a hostile society. This has been the case in the past,
and is currently the case in many places in the world. Periods like this often
display Christianity at its best.

Church will get much smaller, and many denominations
will go under, before growth returns.

Any Christian influence in the public space in
the future may look very different to that of the past, which was connected
with European empires and national religions. Church is trying to bring Christ
to people, not reconstruct the countries we had in the past.

Conversion, discipleship and revival are
non-negotiable. Without these the church cannot recover, public space or not.

In the next blog I will look at a number of contemporary
situations that help support the model. This is a model in development so
expect it to change as it goes along.

[4] Is “smoking” a lifestyle ideology?Perhaps it has become one because the
anti-smoking lobby has pursued its aims with such puritanical zeal that smokers
have become an almost persecuted minority in the West. I am not defending
smoking, which has been conclusively proved to be unhealthy. But I suspect the ideological approach
of anti-smoking campaigns, demonising smokers in the public space, has created
an opposite reaction in the smoking community, raising its ideological status.

[5] I would rather not call it the “Humanist Ideology”.
There are potentially a number of humanist ideologies, and I know some older
humanists who do not subscribe to the current Diversity Ideology. Neither would
I call it a secular ideology as both humanism and the diversity beliefs are
held by many in the Christian church who have liberal views on the authority of
the Bible. Humanism is not contrary to belief in a God, despite the stance of
the British Humanist Association. Humanism is about the human source of
authority with regard to truth. The liberal/conservative battle within the
Christian church is ultimately based on whether the source of authority is
determined by people now, or fixed in either divine revelation, or handed-down
tradition, depending on the brand of conservatism. It is a Christian version of the humanism versus revelation
conflict.

[6] I prefer not to use the description “liberal progressive”.
The word liberal is capable of a number of meanings: open to new ideas;
broadness of viewpoint; a political party; advocate of freedom. I suspect
liberal progressive people are much narrower in scope than these other
definitions suggest. Progressive implies there is always a sense of change. But
the new ideology has specific targets, which if achieved it may well stay at,
thus becoming conservative!I
prefer to name the ideology by what it is trying to achieve, not its sense of
motion.

They state: “Any groups or
individuals contravening this equality and diversity policy will be subject to
disciplinary procedures and patronage and support will be reviewed.” That is,
it is possible to be excluded and not tolerated even under an inclusion and
tolerance policy. This happens because the words have meanings more limited
than they first appear.

An example of elements of the Diversity Ideology, in the
context of combating world poverty, but without reference to sexual diversity.
In this form it is far less controversial. But its roots are humanist, and as
it thus has no religious text to justify its stance, it develops its own
ideological position as a substitute.

[8] Words are often used to fight battles of beliefs and
ideology within Christianity, leading to more and more refined definitions of
those words. Consider trinity, real presence, justification, inerrancy, and
baptism with the Spirit. I could go on! Sometimes the battle is about subtly
changing the meaning of the word so that they can end up meaning something
different to the original.Sometimes the word represents a real divide in beliefs, sometimes they
are an excuse for division over other issues.

[9] It is almost impossible to track down a neutral and
clear account of the wars being waged in the USA over the use of bathrooms (aka
public toilets) by transgender people. This one at least gives the extent to
which the clash of ideologies has entered the public space:

[10] The reinforcing loop linking people to conversions is
used in the institutional model of church growth being used here [11]. It is
also used in the limited enthusiasm model of church growth, where only a
limited number of people, the enthusiasts, are responsible for conversion, thus
in the loop [13]. Dividing the church up into active and inactive members is
more realistic, but unnecessarily complicated when outlining a bigger model as
here. Such fine detail is left to the implementation or calibrations stages of
a model.

[12] Other measures such public opinion or personal cultural
alignment with Christianity will be deferred to a refined model.

[13] More people in the UK now identify as no religion than
Christian. A possible cnsequence of the shift in balance in the public space. See Britain really is ceasing to be a
Christian country, The Spectator, 28/5/16.